Thursday, 30 May 2013

Goodbye Marn Ferson

"Marn" and Abbot
Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Marn Ferson is a real old style Labor person, someone who fought for the rights of the workers. 

Marn Ferson also knew that the climate change hysteria was a hoax. 

Marn Ferson mumbled. 

Marn Ferson strangled his vowels. 

Marn Ferson pronounced his own name as Marn Ferson but in reality his real name is Martin Ferguson.

As Dennis Shanahan wrote in the Australian: (link)

LONG-SERVING Labor minister and party stalwart Martin Ferguson is to resign from parliament at the next election 

The highly-respected former minister, who recently called on the Gillard government to end its “class warfare”, holds Labor's safest federal seat with a margin of 25 per cent.

The Ferguson name has been so deeply ingrained in Labor politics that few in the party can remember a time when it was absent. Martin Ferguson's father, the late Jack Ferguson, entered the NSW Parliament in 1959 and was deputy premier from 1976 to 1984.

Martin's brother Laurie is still in the Federal Parliament. He used social media to excoriate other Rudd backers, Anthony Albanese and South Australian Mark Butler, for failing to fall on their swords like his brother after the would-be Rudd coup went bottoms up. (Tony Wright of the Age)

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott teared up in his address to Parliament on the retirement of Martin Ferguson saying the he had always observed the "best traditions of the Labor Party."

Mr Abbott said that the country would be "the poorer for his absence." He added that "The member for Batman has always harkened to the best traditions of the Australian Labor Party."

"From this side of the political trench I salute an honourable Australian."

At this point, PM Gillard showed her true colours. She turned around to her cronies and rolled her eyes.
Gillard rolling her eyes today when Abbott paid tribute to Martin Ferguson in Parliament is typical. (link)
Goodbye Marn! You will be missed.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

City’s sea-level plans don’t hold water

Bob Carter has written a piece for the Newcastle Herald. (link)
AROUND Australia, the Lake Macquarie City Council is among the most recalcitrant when it comes to paying attention to the science that underpins the global warming and rising sea-level issue. 
NCTCS blog has previous written of this:

Will the real McCloy please stand up...

Jo Nova blog
The science is out on whether Sea Levels are rising. As this blog has written before, data show that Sea Levels are falling - LINK. Coastal councils have been scared by the hyperbole from the AGW alarmists and have made some irrational decisions.

Bob writes:
The council appears to have learned nothing from the defeat of its former plans (based on utterly unrealistic science) to tamper in the property rights of more than 10,000 coastal properties by imposing section 149 certificates on them. 
Nor has the attitude of councillors been chastened by the O’Farrell state government’s dumping of the former Labor government’s unrealistic coastal planning guidelines.
Instead, the council is now marshalling its powers again to force a Local Area (sea-level) Adaptation Plan on the communities of Marks Point and Belmont South.  
Whilst adopting the trendy label of adaptation (which is most certainly the needed, cost-effective way of managing all Australia’s climate hazards), a reading of the allegedly new plan confirms that it  simply represents  a rebadged version of Lake Macquarie City Council’s previous interfering planning.  
Do councillors really think that the public is so stupid that they cannot see through such an obvious ploy? 

Bob discusses what is actually happening and then applies the killer-blow:
The highest quality, long-record tide gauge on the central NSW coast – that at Port Denison, Sydney Harbour – records an average rate of sea-level rise of between 0.5millimetres and 0.9millimetres a year  over the 20th century (as calculated, respectively, by Boretti and  the National Tidal Centre). Even the larger of these two figures is low, being just half of the acknowledged global rate of rise of 1.8millimetres a year.

Treasurer dodges "the greatest moral and economic challenge of our generation".

Peter Costello loves hitting out at the treasurer who followed him.

Peter Costello, writing in the News Ltd Papers: (Link)
IN the Sherlock Holmes mystery Silver Blaze there is the curious incident of a dog that didn't bark in the night. Sherlock Holmes realises this is the key to the crime and solves the mystery. The guard dog didn't bark because it knew the intruder. 
Sometimes in politics we focus too much on what people say and not enough on what they don't say. In this month's Budget speech there was the curious case of the dog that didn't bark. Wayne Swan had no section on climate change.
Peter talks of past Swan budgets and how they were peppered with climate change payouts. The acid tongue of Costello cuts in again.
The object of the carbon tax is to make high energy users pay more for electricity from coal-fired power stations. Eventually, as the cost rises, they will stop using it. This policy could be on the verge of working. 
The Ford motor car company will be closing in Geelong in 2016 and Alcoa's aluminium smelter (also in Geelong) is reviewing its operations. 
The closure of Ford and Alcoa would make a large reduction in our carbon emissions. The Greens should be happy about that. 
I have looked carefully and been unable to find any statement where they welcome it. They should. It is evidence that their policies are working. 
Perhaps they think it is better to go quiet when people are losing their jobs. But when the future of the planet is at stake what are a few dirty-carbon-pollution-creating jobs to stand in the way?
Peter signs off:
Climate change was the dog that didn't bark in the Budget. If that dog had barked it would have raised uncomfortable questions that our government just doesn't want to answer. 
Perhaps Rob Oakeshott  was the barking dog - see Oakeshott's Question Time Question HERE.

Abbott confirms his action on the Climate Change Hoax

Rob Oakeshott
It was probably a trick by the Labor strategists to harm the opposition but it back-fired on all the major parties.
Independent MP Rob Oakeshott kicked off the issue in the House of Representatives when he asked Julia Gillard and Mr Abbott to confirm “their personal acknowledgement, acceptance and confidence in the facts and evidence of man-made climate change”. (link)
The Prime Minister quickly confirmed that she was still taken in by the climate hoax, by the falsified man-made climate change hypothesis. Then, after Speaker Burke ruled Mr Abbott could not answer the question, Albo successfully raised a motion to allow the Opposition Leader to speak. 

Mr Abbott then answered:
“We accept the science that says that something is happening to our planet. We accept that, we always have, we always will. 
“The question ... is not whether or not our climate is impacted by human activity ... the question is how is it best dealt with.”
Then Mr Abbott confirmed his his party's belief in the climate hoax by addressing their policies that deal with the climate hoax.
“The Coalition believes that it should be dealt with by direct action measures, more trees, better soils, smarter technology. 
“That will actually reduce our emissions ... the government's carbon tax will not.”
Mr Abbott, we don't need to reduce emissions of the vital-to-life carbon dioxide.

So Parliament today confirmed that the policies of both major parties still need  buckets of money to be poured into climate change hoax hole. An alternative is to vote for the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Senate Candidates in the September 14th election.

Evasive Tim Flannery dodges Senate Estimates.

Tim Flannery is Australia's (or should that be Panasonics') $180,000 pa part-time Climate
Commissioner. Tim has decided to dodge the Senate Estimates Hearing again. Tim has a record of dodging ticklish situations.

Wes Allen wrote The Weather Makers Re-examined, (link) a critical analysis of Flannery's book,
Wes showed that The Weather Makers contains
  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements,
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish. 
Even though Wes sent a copy of the book to Tim, there were no responses from Tim; no attempt to counter Wes' arguments.

Let's not forget some of Tim's predictions:  (From Andrew Bolt - Link and link)
  • So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.
  • In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months. 
  • If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

 Now we find the Tim has decided once again to dodge the Senate Estimates Hearing.  From "Our"ABC: (link)

Senators frustrated as 'personal commitments' keep Tim Flannery from Senate Estimates hearing

Senators have expressed frustration that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery has not made himself available for a Senate Estimate hearing today. 
Representatives of the Climate Change department and other bodies regulating environmental policy have been called to appearLiberal Senator Ian Macdonald says it is a familiar response that has been used by Professor Flannery to avoid previous hearings as well.
"At least you could have a different excuse every estimates, for the six estimates I think that he's been in charge we've had the same one," he said. 
"He's always had long-standing personal commitments."
Pity he hasn't got the commitment to stand up questioning from Senator Macdonald:
"Can you take on notice then; what Professor Flannery has been paid in the past financial year, what he's actually done, how many of his predictions have turned out to be accurate [and] how many have been wildly over the top," he said.
Come on, Tim! Man up! 

Tim Flannery's bizarre, unscientific & globalist rant

Monday, 27 May 2013

Rooftop Solar comes down to Earth - Something is Wrong!

Graham Lloyd, writing for the Australian (link) has advised that:
AUSTRALIA'S one million rooftop solar households could be forced to pay new fixed charges to help recover billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and make electricity prices fairer for all consumers. 
A series of electricity industry reports has highlighted the inequity in existing power pricing where customers without solar panels are unfairly subsidising those with them.
Lloyd reports that "Queensland Energy Minister Mark McArdle has warned that existing rooftop solar contracts will cost the state more than $2.8 billion over the next 15 years..."
Mr McArdle said the number of households with rooftop solar had continued to grow despite a cutback in government subsidies and the gap between the haves and have-nots in electricity widening.
"If one group of consumers enjoys a benefit in excess of the true savings they make, other electricity customers have to pay the price of those excess benefits or lower prices," he said. 
"When those doing the paying are likely those least able to afford it, and those enjoying the benefits are those likely to be most able to afford to meet their true costs, then something is truly wrong."  (emphasis added)

Meanwhile, in Europe:

  • Belgian companies managing the country’s electricity and natural gas distribution grids (GRD), including Ores and Tecteo, are asking for a tax on solar panels from October 1, to ensure that owners contribute to using the network. (link) 
  • (In Greece) The Environment and Energy Ministry is planning to impose an extraordinary levy on photovoltaic systems on rooftops used for the production of electricity (link)
  • Spain is planning to raise cash from renewable energy for the first time, a blow to an industry already struggling with subsidy cuts. (link)
  • The European Union is quietly taking steps to shred the ‘green agenda’ responsible for rocketing energy bills across the continent. (link)

H/t Benny Peiser.

What if plants turn out to need the same welfare consideration as livestock?
Do plants scream when they are attacked by a vegan?

Plant 'telepathy' breakthrough

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
23 May, 2013 04:00 AM
WE can't hear it, but scientists are finding that in the apparently silent world of plants, a whole lot of communication is going on.

At the University of Western Australia (UWA), researchers recently found that seeds recognise "good" or "bad" neighbouring seeds - even when there is a plastic sheet between them.

And in the United Kingdom, researchers have found that plants also maintain sophisticated underground signalling networks through mycorrhizal fungi.

If a plant is attacked by a pest, the attack is telegraphed to other plants connected by the fungi. Those "alerted" plants can then produce repellent compounds ahead of the pests' arrival.

The new information helps explain why the long-established gardener's practice of companion planting, or the permaculture principle of planting in plant "guilds", has an effectiveness that goes beyond visible evidence of competition and community.

Mixed plant communities compete for resources like water and light, but helpful interactions also play out: nitrogen fixing, pest control or the attraction of desirable insects like pollinators.
The interactions we know about are the ones we can see, like the shading effects of taller plants on those below.

Monica Gagliano and colleagues at UWA looked at whether some other form of invisible communication was going on. To their interest and bemusement, it seems there is.

In an exploratory study, the researchers first looked at the interactions between chilli and fennel.
Chilli doesn’t like fennel: when grown next to each other, the volatile chemicals of fennel hinders the germination rate of chilli seeds.

But when the researchers blocked all known light, chemical and touch signals between the plant seeds - using a sheet of black plastic - the same suppression of chilli germination occurred.

"This demonstrated that plants were able to sense their neighbours even when all known communication channels are blocked, and most importantly, recognise the potential for the interfering presence of a 'bad neighbour' and modify their growth accordingly," Dr Gagliano wrote.

The next step was to look at the effect of "good" plant neighbours: in this case, basil and chilli.
Basil, Dr Gagliano wrote, has the capacity to act as a natural insecticide, and to produce secondary and organic volatiles inhibiting germination and root growth of common competitive weeds like barnyard grass and lambsquarter.

"Besides, gardeners commonly regard it as the ideal companion to chilli plants by virtue of its ability to keep the soil moist and act as organic living mulch."

In their experiments, basil proved to have a positive effect on chilli germination and growth - and again, it didn't matter whether the plants were in visible contact or all known sources of communication had been masked.

Dr Gagliano speculated that even at the seed stage, plants have evolved the ability to sense their neighbours in the soil.
"Because the presence and specific identity of neighbours influence germination timing and success, the existence of an adaptive mechanism that allows a plant to detect its neighbours (and potentially its forthcoming competitive environment), and hence to regulate its developmental responses accordingly at the very onset of its life (ie. seed stage) is clearly advantageous."
How this works remains a mystery, although Dr Gagliano theorises that "nanomechanical oscillations of various components in the cytoskeleton can produce a spectrum of vibrations" - basically, seeds produce nano-sounds detectable by other seeds.

Less mysterious, but of great significance, is the discovery by UK researchers from several universities of an Avatar-like signalling network broadcast through mycorrhizae.

These fungi form a symbiotic relationship with plant roots. In exchange for compounds the plant makes during photosynthesis, mycorrhizae transports nutrient and moisture through its vast networks of hyphae to the host plant.

In this sense, the fungi act as root extenders, often doubling or more the reach of a plant's roots. Many Australian trees can't thrive in Australia's poor soils without them.

American mycorrhizae specialist Dr Jim Trappe, a regular visitor here, speculates that widespread Australian tree dieback is a result of mycorrhizae networks being killed off by fertiliser and soil compaction on farmland.

The UK research shows that the fungal networks also form an underground communications network.
The researchers used plots of broad beans, with each plant covered with a bag so it wasn't possible for the beans to communicate with chemicals released into the air.

Some plots were connected through mycorrhizal networks; in others, the fungi wasn't allowed to grow.

When aphids were introduced to one of the mycorrhizae-connected bean plants, the levels of defensive chemicals in bean plants on the same fungal network quickly rose.

In the unconnected beans, introducing aphids to a plant provoked no response in other plants.

John Pickett of Rothamsted Research told the BBC that one possible use for this knowledge would be to include particularly aphid-prone sacrificial plants in a crop. When aphids attacked, the fungal signalling system could raise the natural defences of more economically valuable plants.

It could prove a robust method of switching on plant defences when needed - without demanding the plant produce defensive chemicals all the time - and reduce development of resistance, Professor Pickett said.

Friday, 24 May 2013

Closing Down of Ford

Closing Down of Ford


 Media Release – 24 May from Des Moore
Founding Director of the Institute for Private Enterprise 

             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nothing could better illustrate the inflexibility of Australia’s system (sic) of workplace relations than the announcement by Ford that it will stop production in 2016.

Why has Ford done this?

There is more than one reason, of course. But Ford rightly drew attention to the high cost of production in Australia. And this is not simply the usual excuse trotted out by the ACTU and unions generally viz the higher exchange rate that has applied but now looks like moving down.

A major problem has been the inability of Australian businesses to negotiate wages and other terms and conditions that allow those businesses to compete internationally.

An important factor in the recovery of the US motor car industry was its ability to negotiate lower wages than had previously been agreed but were clearly out of line with more competitive industries in Japan and other countries.  (emphasis added)
Such a solution was never considered here (or if it was it was discussed behind closed doors). Instead taxpayers have in effect subsidised the wage rates determined by our “fair” award system.

Why wasn’t a negotiation approach considered? The simple answer is that, under the disastrous arrangements for regulating wages and conditions, it would never have been accepted by our so-called Fair Work system – a system that has set wage rates that are unfair to the workers now out of a job.

Nor could the Gillard government have suggested such a process because it is beholden to the union movement.

If Australia is to prevent the decline of our manufacturing industry it is vital that our next government take early steps to allow freedom for employers and workers to negotiate terms and conditions that allow our businesses to compete.

Des Moore
Director, IPE

New Ten Worst AGW Papers by COHENITE.

Blogger Cohenite has previously written posts on the Worst AGW Papers and the Worst Climate Research papers for Jennifer Marohasy's great blog. (

He has a new list, published by Jennifer HERE.

He has asked us to share his latest list.

His foreword:
I consider anthropogenic global warming, AGW, a failed theory, but it still shuffles on like an animated corpse sustained by money, politics and the faithful.  The faithful keep publishing junk science.  I put a list together of the 10 worst climate science research papers in September 2008 [1].  I added to this list in April 2009 [2].  There was more by me published at Jo’s  AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff.  Now I’m adding another ten papers to the worst list, so I guess it’s the ten recent worst.
 Regards - Cohenite

AGW: 10 Best, 10 Worst Part 1.

Jennifer has suggested another 10 article. It’s been a while. Since the last one at Jo’s  AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff. I consider it a failed theory. But it still shuffles on like an animated corpse sustained by money, politics and the faithful.

My First Worst is by a leading light of the AGW ‘science’, Kevin Trenberth. His paper is here.  

1. Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. By Magdalena A. Balmaseda, Kevin E. Trenberth and Erland Kallen. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, 2013.

Trenberth and his researchers have never been able to find the ‘missing heat’. He still insists it is at the bottom of the ocean. This is despite sea surface temperatures declining, demonstrable reasons why backradiation, the Deus ex machina of AGW, cannot heat the oceans and the top 700 meters of the ocean not warming, at least since the accurate measurement of Ocean Heat Content [OHC] began in 2003, as David Evans shows.

Trenberth ignores all this and the basic point of how the bottom can heat while the middle and top don’t and explains why the deep ocean heat content is increasing:
“Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
So has there been increasing wind variability in the surface winds:

2. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. By John Cook et. al.  Published in Environmental Research Letters, 2013

The consensus is the mainstay of AGW ‘science’. It’s always the case that AGW is true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is bad science. It only takes one contradiction to disprove a scientific theory as Karl Popper’s swan analogy shows. This hasn’t stopped John Cook once again reverting to the consensus ‘proof’. Cook’s consensus paper is here. This paper has been critiqued by Jo, Watts, some German guys and by Lucia. Lucia and Brandon Schollenberger analyse Cook’s methodology and Guidelines for classifying climate papers into ‘support’ and ‘reject’ AGW categories and find, in fact, that Cook’s paper disproves the consensus. By Cook’s own criteria more climate papers reject AGW. Cook has disproved the consensus! Cook has had a chequered publishing career with his mate professor Lewandowsky. Maybe it’s time Cook also left the country.

3. Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS, Classifications. By Charlotte Wickham, Judith Curry, Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele.Unpublished.

 Professor Richard Muller was once regarded highly by AGW advocates for being a sceptic and then seeing the ‘truth’ about AGW. But Muller was never a sceptic. At Berkeley Muller and his team have self-published a number of papers on temperature and other aspects of AGW. Peer review on these papers is incomplete, so in effect they are draft papers but they have had great influence even head-lighting the options at Wood-for-trees. Major defects ranging from statistical methodology to ignoring or not allowing for UHIE have been levied against Muller. So what does his latest paper do? It purports to show there is NO UHIE. This is ridiculous. In a contemporaneous draft paper Watts employs the updated Leroy method to account for UHIE. Leroy 2010 used a new criteria for heat sinks based on their total surface area rather than distance from them. This gives a truer representation of UHIE since as urban centres grow the surface area of the heat islands increase. Muller however, simply attempts to distinguish between rural and urban areas. The problem is, as the incomparable Willis Eshenbach describes, Muller’s distinction between rural and urban is meaningless since his criteria classifies airports as rural; that is, some if not most of his rural sites are urban sites with UHIE.

4. Global Temperature Evolution 1979-2010. By Grant Foster and Stefan Sahmstorf. Published in Environmental Research Letters, 2011.

Continuing the theme of meaninglessness Foster and Ramstorf’s 2011 paper was meant to be the last word on climate sensitivity to CO2 increase. They removed all the natural factors which may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1   as the ‘pure’ AGW forcing. This rate was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was flawed as well as Bob Tisdale notes. Bob was mainly concerned with showing ENSO was not exogenous and could not be excluded as Foster and Rahmstorf [F&R] did but his 2 regression equations derived from F&R’s paper produced some astounding comments, particularly from ferd berple. Ferd uses some algebra and substitution and shows in his own words:
“F&R have proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.”

5. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

By Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix. Published in Science, March 2013. 

AGW has to establish the current climate is exceptional. It has attempted to do that with the hockeystick. McShane and Wyner have demolished what was left of Mann’s hockeystick. But like a weed different forms keep regrowing. 2 recent hockeysticks have emerged and they are true to type. The first was by Marcott and his team including Shakum, who we’ll get too soon. Marcott has it all: incorrect splicing, cherry-picking, inverted proxies, wrong signs, all the problems Mann had and then some including the fact that Marcott’s PhD thesis was almost identical except it did not have the modern day temperature ‘uptick’ or hockeystick blade. Still Marcott remains in print. 

6. Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium. By Joëlle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Steven J. Phipps, Ailie J.E. Gallant, David J. Karoly. Submitted to Journal of Climate

Gergis et al’s attempt to show an Australian hockeystick was quickly withdrawn. It was withdrawn because Gergis et al had only selected proxies which correlated with modern temperatures; however that selection process involved detrending both the modern temperature and the proxies. In other words they created proxies which confirmed the exceptional modern day temperature. As Nick Stokes showed when the detrending was removed there was no correlation and in fact significant difference between the proxies and modern temperature and therefore no way of knowing whether modern Australian temperature was exceptional. Gergis is the statistical equivalent of not being able to count to 10.

7. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. By Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott,  Alan C.Mix, Zhengyu Liu,    Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard. Published in Nature, Volume 484, pages 49-54

An insurmountable obstacle to AGW is that there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 does not move before temperature but at best as a response to it or arguably with no correlation at all; this is shown over all timespans: geological, 20thC and 21stC. So to argue as AGW does, that CO2 causes a temperature increase, is to argue against the data. That has never bothered AGW ‘science’ so we have2 new papers saying either CO2 rises before temperature as Shakum does, or that there is synchronicity between CO2 and temperature as Parrenin et al argues. Shakum is easily dismissed because he bases his conclusion on a massive cherry pick of the only period in the last 20000 years where CO2 appears to rise before temperature

8. Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming. By F. Parrenin, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Köhler, D. Raynaud, D. Paillard, J. Schwander, C. Barbante, A. Landais, A. Wegner, J. Jouzel. Published in Science, Volume 339, pages 1060-1063

Parrenin does the same thing but says they rise together. However, as Lansner’s brilliant [non-peer-reviewed] analysis of the ice-core data shows in Figure 5, over the 20000 years since the last glacial equal levels of CO2 are at times correlated with both decreasing and increasing temperatures and high and low temperatures. The right cherry pick can disguise that complete lack of causal relationship which is what AGW ‘science’ in the Shakum and Parrenin papers has done.

9-10 Finkelstein and Beyond Zero Emissions [BZE]. These 2 papers deal with 2 of the main peripheral issues of AGW. 

9. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation. By Ray Finkelstein QC. Published by the Australian government, March 2012.

Firstly Finkelstein’s enquiry and recommendations into press censorship comes down in favour of it on the basis of a gullible underclass being susceptible to a subversive media. The example used by Finkelstein is the press coverage of AGW and its associated issues like the carbon tax and too much consideration of a sceptical position. What Finkelstein clearly indicates is that AGW is an elitist concept with our betters doing what is best for us even if that involves garden variety censorship. This plainly shows AGW is not scientific but a social and political ideology. In this respect readers should exercise their social and political rights on the 14th September. 

10. Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan.  By Beyond Zero Emissions [BZE], 2010.

BZE are an advocacy group for renewable energy. I used to think there may be something in renewable energy but then I grew up. In 2010 BZE produced their Zero Carbon Australia- Stationary Energy Plan whereby they ‘proved’ ALL of Australia’s energy could be supplied by renewables by 2020. This plan was critiqued by Peter Lang and Martin Nicholson, 2 engineers, who agreed. The main 2 provisos were that there should be at least a 60% drop in electricity demand at today’s usage which would mean an effective 70% plus drop on a per capita basis, and a cost up to over $4 billion. Both figures are highly conservative and I’m sure both Peter and Martin would agree that since 2010 the costs especially have sky-rocketed. And this is the heart of renewables; much less for much more. All justified by a science theory, AGW, which has no substance at all.

More Money for Councils or More Power for Canberra?

Vote No to the referendum

More Money for Councils or More Power for Canberra?

Has Canberra produced an atmosphere of trust, integrity, respect for the people & democratic values that would justify conceding them further power?

A paper by Graham Williamson May 2013 

The Bulk of Graham's paper can be found at THIS LINK.

Below are Graham's conclusions:

Commonwealth governments, whether Labor or Liberal, are extremely selective about the referendum issues they endorse. They never endorse referendums which would increase political accountability or strengthen state or national sovereignty. This referendum is no different.

Government has been advised that if they wish to obtain the support of the people for a ‘yes’ vote then they must make the people THINK that a ‘no’ vote would mean reduced council funds for things like child care and libraries. The task then is to convince the people of this rather than tell them the truth about the issues surrounding the referendum. In reality however, the evidence cited above clearly reveals the government has been unable to substantiate their claim that the only way of ensuring the continued financial viability of councils is to change the Constitution as proposed in the referendum. 

The reasons for this are twofold.

  1. The government has failed to demonstrate that current funding arrangements, where the Commonwealth funds councils via the states, is no longer adequate.
  2. The government has completely failed to mention the fact that the current political environment which is allegedly bankrupting councils is a result of a 20 year drive by the Commonwealth and by the United Nations, to compel councils to divert funds from traditional council services such as local services and infrastructure, libraries and childcare, to the implementation of undemocratic United Nations global programs such as Agenda 21. Until the Commonwealth, and the ALGA, clearly state the final cost of implementation of these UN global programs, any suggestion of amending the Constitution to permit increased Commonwealth funding is not only completely inappropriate, it is an abandonment of democracy and the Australian people.

The Commonwealth government, with assistance from the States, has burdened councils with an extraordinary collection of exceedingly wasteful unproductive undemocratic UN driven initiatives and now they want the people to approve and perpetuate this by handing even more power to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has completely failed to justify and quantify this undemocratic diverting of public funds from essential local services to implementation of UN global programs.
The Commonwealth has provided no convincing arguments whatsoever which would justify the proposed constitutional changes.

Furthermore, concerns by many that this referendum is just another anti-State power grab have not been addressed by supporters of the referendum ‘yes’ case.

Since the Commonwealth claims they merely wish to ensure continuation of council funding and they are not interested in exercising power over councils by controlling such funding, why then have they chosen not to simultaneously endorse constitutional safeguards to prevent such an abuse of power? Since such a move would allay the fears of many who are concerned about a power grab by Canberra, the government’s refusal to include such a reform reinforces the arguments of those who see the referendum as an attack on State sovereignty.

What we need first and foremost are positive changes to the Constitution to prevent interference from foreign agencies, protect freedom and democracy, and increase political accountability.

Until the Commonwealth can justify and supply full costs for the UN Agenda 21 program, and until sufficient safeguards, empowering the people and safeguarding sovereignty, are inserted in the constitution, the proposed referendum should be rejected.

Councils deserve the support of the people, not exploitation by the UN and the Commonwealth for their own introspective ideological purposes.